Candidates Address Seniors' Issues

Prescription Drug Subsidy, State Aid To Local Schools Draw Interest

WINDSOR — State Rep. Peggy Sayers said Tuesday that the state is better off helping senior citizens pay for prescription drugs than spending more money for the sky-high cost of nursing home care.

Most of the state House and Senate candidates taking part in a forum at the senior center chimed in to support that concept.

Sayers, who spent 12 years inspecting nursing homes for the state, said, ``From talking to people in this district, I think that health care and prescription drugs are a priority.'' She noted that the past General Assembly raised income limits for the ConnPACE program to $20,000 for individuals and $27,100 for couples -- and those limits might go up more.

``Even though [such medicines] are expensive, they are keeping people healthy'' into their 80s and 90s, Sayers said. That means avoiding costly nursing care.

With about 40 gray-haired men and women in attendance -- most of them members of the AARP, which sponsored the forum -- candidates' remarks naturally focused on the drug subsidy, state aid to local schools and other pocketbook issues.

Nine candidates running in the 2nd and 7th Senate districts and the 15th, 60th and 61st House districts, all of which have some foothold in Windsor, attended the 90-minute session.

Among the most contested races, though, is the 60th. In that race, Sayers, a two-term Windsor Locks Democrat, is being challenged by Republican Douglas Hamilton, a member of the Windsor Locks school board, and Peter Magistri of Windsor, running on the Green Party ticket.

Hamilton said he is troubled by the state's policy of directing far more school aid to poor, inner-city districts such as Hartford and Bridgeport, where the state contributes more than 80 percent of education funding. In contrast, Windsor and Windsor Locks get 10 to 12 percent.

While acknowledging that the state uses a cost-sharing formula that considers need as well as local tax ``effort'' to fund the schools, Hamilton said the formula needs adjusting. Districts getting the most money should face more ``accountability'' to prove they are making progress, he said.

He said he would work to rein in a ``fund-it-now-and-find-a-way-to-pay-for-it-later'' approach to government spending. Instead, he said, the state should set priorities the way households do -- and simply do without goods or services it cannot afford.

Magistri, the Green Party candicate, called for revival of campaign finance reform. Moneyed interests wield too much influence over Connecticut elected officials, and ``everything trickles down from that problem,'' Magistri said.

He also advocated universal health care, in which health insurance would be taken over by state government and run ``by a board of citizens and state officials.'' That would save Connecticut $1.3 billion, he added, drawing applause from a few in the audience. .

Magistri also said the state income tax should be made more ``progressive,'' by lowering rates for households earning less than $100,000 annually and raising rates for those earning $300,000 a year or more.

That brought a reaction from state Rep. Ruth Fahrbach, a Windsor Republican representing the 61st District.

She said levying higher taxes on the rich would drive wealthy taxpayers from Connecticut, ultimately costing the state revenue.

After the forum, Sayers called that view laughable.

She said millionaires she has met have said paying r $5,000 to $6,000 more annually in taxes would hardly be noticeable.